The Amazing Mrs Elizabeth Beckett

Some of you know that I am having a spat with HMRC. I fully intend to use the research and learnings of Mrs Beckett to defend myself. (Plus a few other things that need to remain up my sleeve for now). Although I will produce a detailed report on events, you might be interested to know that HMRC recently threatened to take me to court. I wrote back and said, "Ready when you are. But be warned: you are going to lose, and here's why". I quoted a few of the methods I intended to use. I explained that I had Lawful Excuse. They backed off. At some point my battle will end in a court-room, and I am looking forward to it. I have them nailed, but, (as expected) they just don't know that yet. Although, given their recent climb-down, they may be harbouring some doubts. More on that later.

Mrs Beckett was a feisty lady, and I wish that I had met her. People like her continue to inspire me to do what's right. With just a few more thousand like me, we can finally clean up parliament for the good of all.

Everything that follows was posted by The Whistleblower. It is reproduced with full permission of the author.

"The fact is that the way the United Kingdom is currently governed is in total violation of our constitution…..not only by the fact that they are illegally taking away the power of the Monarch and its citizens by falsely handing this power to a foreign nation. They continue to hand out billions of taxpayers money and then demand to tax us even more…this is in violation of our historical constitution.

I thought I would leave the rest of this article to the words spoken by other good British Citizens who did care and did not sit back in their armchairs, like most of us and just accept what our government is telling us.

My first dedication must go to Mrs. Elizabeth Beckett who worked tirelessly in defending the constitution of the United Kingdom. I find her work so interesting especially when she applied her knowledge in advising readers in the US about the American Constitution. The following is an extract from the Namaste Magazine Vol 10 Issue 2:

As far as the American Constitution is concerned, Jefferson and co made a Masonic Constitution, but they did not wipe out the existing British Constitution on which the colonies had lived for two hundred years. This is the basis of your law and customs

The English Constitution includes:

1). Magna Carta, (which the Supreme Court used for the release of the people in Guantanamo Bay)

2). The Petition of Right 1627

3). The Bill of Rights of 1689

4). The 1700 Act of Settlement

These legal statutes were made by the people from whom the colonies are descended, only rubber stamped by British Parliament, (governing the colonies at the time) until independence. It is the basis of your Law and your Constitution. The United States Constitution is subject to the British Constitution.

The only elements of the US Constitution that differ from the British Constitution is the royal prerogative and Christianity. The prerogative can exceptionally be used by the President, but is not part of the law as it is with us in the UK. However, the people of the USA cannot rely on the 'prerogative', all they can do is find the relevant phrases that can fight orders. These can be found in the Bill of Rights 1689 and chapter 29 of Magna Carta. Good luck.

I think Elizabeth was a remarkable lady and it is rather sad that this fine lady no longer graces our planet. She was an extremely strong woman with values and having a father as a High Court Judge has obviously instilled in her that one must do what is right and not go along with the flow. Here is more information on her stance from the same source:

Mrs. Elizabeth Beckett’s legitimate Constitutional stance against an illegal tax system and treasonous government. A story that should be on the front page of every newspaper, but has remained unreported! This amazingly selfless lady has studied the British Constitution in great depth. Her initial interest in the law began when she was a District Officer’s wife in India where her father, a High Court Judge for many years, was party to drawing up the 1935 India Act of Independence.

Elizabeth was summoned to appear in court at Carlisle, a distance from her home of approximately 55 miles. Without hesitation or complaint, this remarkable 83 year old lady, who in her own words ELIZABETH is lame, (she cannot walk very well without aid, due to a painful hip), took a taxi on her own, to the court where a judge listened to her appeal against a threatened bankruptcy order by her local council, for refusing to pay her Council Tax. Her refusal was based on the following objections: “It is illegal to pay a tax to destroy my country.” Later she discovered just how illegally councils are acting.

Elizabeth has received very little mainstream media reporting, the little she has had has only been at local level. Nationally, the BBC televised 30 seconds on the Politics Show. Even though she was interviewed by a reporter, the BBC editor refused point blank to broadcast her interview. It was withdrawn. We ask, could this be because of the influence of Common Purpose?

Namaste has tried to present Elizabeth’s story to various national newspapers: They were not interested. In fact the News Desk of the Daily Mail in Manchester thought our information about Elizabeth’s Constitutional Rights and the Act of Treason committed against the people of the British nation was far fetched! They put it to the News Desk that we do indeed have a Constitution. This was also dismissed. They ask, could this be because of the influence of Common Purpose?

I am happy to say that despite the British Medias refusal to covering this story (as they did with Hollie Greig); we are more than happy to always reveal the truth. When one continues to read about such cover-ups it makes the decision to vote that much harder. The three mainline parties have so much dirty washing to hang out one cannot trust them to run our country. Their policies are so much aligned to the New World Order that one must never allow them to succeed.

Again I will use more information from Namaste in order to give them the media coverage they deserve:

It is quite clear that we are dealing with mindset which is at best totally ignorant and, at worst, working deliberately to subvert our ancient Constitutional history - The Birth Right of the People of England, (1700). This is still the law of the land today! How could this happen? The plan has been carefully contrived. The journalist Stewart Alsop wrote: “Knowledge is power and power is the most valuable commodity in government. So whoever knows the secrets controls the knowledge and therefore holds the power...”

This would help to explain why Harold Wilson removed the teaching of the Constitution from the British education curriculum, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Today, Britain’s universities DO NOT teach treason laws, the greatest crime against a nation; hence today, we find our nation and our freedom in the most critical situation. How could this happen you may ask? The answer to this can be found in the descriptively accurate words of Cicero Marcus Tullius, born on 3 January, 106 BC and murdered on 7 December, 43 BC:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

This is so precisely true of what is taking place today, not only in Britain, but other countries of the Commonwealth, and the USA - this is the Common Purpose. We and our colleagues both in the UK and USA, are deeply concerned with the direction that both our nations are heading, yet so many seem woefully ignorant. This is not because people are stupid but they lack time and interest to inform themselves, largely because of the education system and mass media control with mind manipulations. We see and hear people acting like sheep, unheeded by the ever emerging totalitarian state, unquestioning, unwilling to research and blindly accepting lies and half-truths from those who can only be best described at misinformed and in the main, deliberate liars.


Part of this disinformation relates to our Council Tax in the UK. For the benefit of our overseas readers, Council Tax is a tax on domestic property collected by local councils in the UK. The council is supposed to use this revenue to pay for local services such as schools, rubbish (garbage) collection, roads and street lighting, etc.

Fiscal Prerogative

Elizabeth felt driven to research the issue of Council Tax accounts, having observed various related, suspicious news articles in the press one of which involved the North West Regional Council of the UK purchasing a house in Brussels, a totally inappropriate action in view of the sufferings of the Cumbrian fishermen and farmers. This alarmed her to the fact that she might well, as a law abiding honest Council Tax payer, be assisting in the potential breakup of her country. We must emphasise that Constitutional Law is not a matter of politics, whether one votes to drive on the left or the right, but a matter of law like the dividing of Britain into ‘Lander’ such as the county of Kent becoming part of France, and Wales becoming part of Ireland etc. That is against our law and Elizabeth said she could not pay for the destruction of the sovereignty of this country. She then asked for full disclosure of how her Council Tax is being spent. This has not been forthcoming because of the liability order against her; the order is an executive order and in Britain alone is governed by the Royal Prerogative. The Enforcement Officer and people in charge of the courts refused to admit that the Liability Order could be challenged in any way. According to the Petition of Right of 1627 all taxation should be honoured by Parliament, under the Royal Assent and Parliament cannot pass acts that are against our Constitution.

Elizabeth further discovered a covert plan to do with the regional assemblies. These are voluntary bodies that are designed to break up England, e.g. Northumberland up to Carlisle will became part of Germany. This was not mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto.

Amongst the papers she handed to the judge at her trial, were the details of Common Purpose and their assemblies, which have increased by 500% since the year 2000. Taxation emanates from the Chancellor’s Office and these are illegal under what is known as the ‘fiscal prerogative’ and the ‘Petition of Right’. Because these assemblies are voluntary bodies, they are not available for funding by the taxpayer. Our Constitution states that ‘all laws’ that go through Parliament ‘must have Royal Assent, in order to become law.’ Instead, they are now validated on a false claim that the Royal Assent is automatic. However, the power to grant this is part of the prerogative, which it impassable.
The automatic assent was invented by the Fabian Prime Minister Asquith who gave the qualification based on the premise that Queen Ann had been the last monarch to send back a bill. The implication being that the monarch could not send back bills, whereas in fact, their power lies in the support of our Constitutional Laws by refusing to give Assent to bills that are unconstitutional.

The Parliament Act

In fact Edward VII had refused to pass the Parliament Act in 1910 and as such Asquith had to go to the country for a vote which he lost. A plan was devised to get this bill back, so he invited 40 Fabian Socialists and 82 Sien Fien to join his party in order to destroy the House of Lords which had been holding on to the fiscal prerogative and in so doing he set out to destroy the British Constitution.

The Parliament Act is actually illegal under the Constitution and the 1848 Treason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords nor the Commons has power above the other. The 1911 Act altered the ‘fiscal power,’ which according to our Constitution cares for all taxpayers, as stated under the Petition of Right (part of the Constitution - No taxation without representation). This puts taxation illegally into the hands of the majority political party in the Commons, and without any amendment allowed from the House of Lords.

At the time of the French Revolution and the American Independence, political parties weren’t fixed as in the Masonic Constitution of America, which is based on the principal of divide and rule. Whereas in Britain, the British Constitution was made by the People for the People and the monarch holds them together according to our Constitutional laws. In relation to this fact, Elizabeth put forward to the judge the question of Brussels acting illegally under European Laws which invalidated the court itself. e.g. the 1988 Mercantile Shipping Act in relation to Spaniards fishing within the British 12 mile limit. Brussels overruled it and fined the British £300,000. In doing this Brussels claimed rights over our Sovereign and Parliament who had passed the Act. She pointed out to the court under this ruling it had no validity. At which point the judge shut her up and said, “I am under contract to make a liability order against you since the order allowed no exception.”

This is entirely against our constitutional laws. Elizabeth then asked for leave to appeal. The judge replied, “You can do what you like.”

Elizabeth explained to the judge that Queens Council has given her his opinion, “Technically under the Rules of Erskine May, it is stated the Automatic Assent, if not complied with, would invalidate ALL laws since 1911”.

Common law

Elizabeth’s Plaint lays the ground for important legal and Constitutional constraints which are being side-stepped and their legal validity is being denied by our present legal system and government. The fact they are still part of our British Common law is undeniable, Sir Edward Coke said, “The Royal Prerogative is part of the Personality of the Monarch and could not be taken from them even by an Act if Parliament” which the Law Lords Halbury and Jowitt agree. (Halbury’s Laws, The Birth Right of the People of England (These are legal reference books of great prestige).

Since the Assent is given under the regal ‘Prerogative Power,’ it is invalid if it is given to an unconstitutional act. So in a different way, both Counsel’s opinion and Elizabeth’s lead to the same conclusion. Therefore, she says that one can conclude that ALL of the bills that have been made law since 1911, which includes 1972 entry into Europe, and all that follows, together with the Civil Contingencies Bill, the constitutional Reform Act, Equality Act and the Immigration Act ARE VOID.
It is clear that our entry into the European Union is INVALID, ILLEGAL and against our Constitution. Treason has been committed and should be remedied.

Once asked Elizabeth why she was making this potentially dangerous and difficult stance at her time of life. She replied:
“I do it for my children, grandchildren and for all our ancestors - all those who have died for our freedom. Do you want to see your children in chains? I was in India during the war and knew about the fight against the Japanese and I knew about the earlier war and I quote John Edmonds... ‘When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today’” ~ John Maxwell Edmonds (1875 -1958). She went on to say: “Talk about the Constitution. Research it. Know it. Know that it exists and help to keep it alive against the evil forces dedicated to its destruction.”

Elizabeth also suggested the following: Readers should consider raising the following points as set out below, with their local council. Bear in mind that it is probable that Common Purpose is operating in your area. Councils cannot take taxes for an organisation that cannot achieve an audit. It is illegal under the Local Government Act 1972, which is still used for auditing local government accounts. All those who pay Council Tax should write to their local council and quote section 239 of the 1972 ACT.

1). You as the Council have the right to oppose or depose acts in Parliament.
Under your oaths of allegiance, the laws in the Bill of Rights of 1689 make clear this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.”
They also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”.

2). This law and its oath are not subject to Parliament because they were given to Parliament by the People whose WILL is supreme over Parliament.
This means Parliament may not allow any part of the aforementioned oath to be breached, side-stepped or ignored. This Bill of Rights precludes and effectively forbids Parliament from passing any bill like the 1972 EEC Act, the Treaty of Rome or any other European legislation which gives them any say at all in the governance of England. It also precludes Parliament from passing any laws contrary to the spirit of this Bill of Rights.

Chief Justice Beresford said; “You must look on the spirit of the law not just how it is written.”
The Scots have their own version of this law. Indeed the people and Parliament were told the 1972 EEC Act was a purely trading agreement with no Constitutional impact at all!

3). Since you use the Local Government Act for your audit, I wish to draw your attention to another services’ misdemeanour and that is you have been paying my council tax in to an unaudited administration (this is the 13th year).

4). If I were to pay my Council Tax I would be complicit in this illegality. Even more seriously, I would be allowing without complaint, the present Government’s intention to herd this country over to this illegal administration.

5). Under the powers given to you under section 239 you have the power to refuse to agree this and would be acting illegally if you did not.

6). This applies to any council, PRESS them to ACT under these laws.
Do you want to be like the judge acting illegally under European law? Or do you want to do something about it? We must never forget, our Constitution was made by our ancestors (often with their lives) not by Parliament.

The 'prerogative power' is given to the monarch by the PEOPLE, under the Bill of Rights of 1689 and Magna Carta. The monarch agrees to protect our laws and customs under the Coronation Oath and the Constitution. Failure do so is TREASON against the people! We are protected from GESTAPO type (executive) law by the 'prerogative'. This is what the New World order is trying to take away from us. This is our ancient law. Therefore, why has the monarch signed FIVE illegal treaties taking us into a crimalised organisation -the EU which is completely against our Constitution?

Elizabeth did apply for an interlocutory injunction to stop Brown and his associates taking us, the People of the UK further into an illegal administrative situation. (Anyone can and should do this). It is illegal for a government to be financially involved with an organisation that cannot even audit its own accounts. The EU has not audited its accounts for the past 13 years.

OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER BROWN.

Dear Mr. Brown

It appears that you are acting under the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, imagining that you, as a Prime Minister, hold the 'prerogative power.'

Are you sir, aware of the meaning of the 'PREROGATIVE POWER'?
Have you taken constitutional legal advice on this very serious action of entry into the EU?

If so from whom have you sought such advice?

Are you aware that this is a serious crime against the People of Britain? It is TREASON.

Yours Sincerely

Mrs. Elizabeth Beckett

THE ABOVE QUESTIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO ASK MR BROWN BECAUSE - UPON TAKING OFFICE HE MADE A OATH OF ALLEGIANCE WHICH INCORPORATES OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE SAID OATH OF ALLEGIANCE IS ALSO TREASON.

We ask readers to please to copy the above letter and replace Elizabeth's name with their own name and send to number 10 Downing Street and see what response they get. All letters received from number 10 Downing Street to the above letter, if any, will published in the Palestine Telegraph. I guess we should not hold our breath waiting because as the end of the day they not longer serve the public that puts them in office.

We should all take a chapter out of the life of dear Mrs. Beckett and reclaim our country from the talons of the New World Order. I have included the following timeline as published in the Namaste Magazine covering the latter part of Elizabeth’s life leading up to her death:

24th December 2007

* There is a delay in the appeal for judicial review because the court in now informed Elizabeth that since a certificate of service has not been received by the court the case can't move forward. The fact is the certificate of service was faxed to the court on 1st December by a government employee on Elizabeth's behalf. She also has a letter from the local council dated 8th December, confirming receipt of the certificate of service and she has sent copies of the said letters to the court. Thus Elizabeth has asked the court for an upgrading of her case which has been delayed because they claimed they had not received the certificate of service.
* A notice is about to be served on Elizabeth for a court hearing in February 2008 to implement the bankruptcy order made against her in March 2007. The hearing will take place in Carlisle.
* Interestingly, the interlocutory injunction filed by Elizabeth to stop Brown and his associates taking us, the People of the UK further into an illegal administrative situation, seems to be delayed lost in the system. How unusual!

The hearing for the implementation for the liability order against Elizabeth will take place on the 6th February 2008 at Carlisle Court, Rickergate at 2.40pm. This was to validate the extent of her liability because her income is so low which has now been dealt with.

27th February 2008

* Thanks to the generous donations received by members of the public, we were able to pay into court the £1,293.97 required to prevent the bankruptcy order against Elizabeth being executed. Her home has been saved for now. Nevertheless, Elizabeth still intends pursue her case against the illegal Liability Order

27 May, 2008

* The legal advice that has been given to Elizabeth is that she should have professional to help in putting her case together so that it can go forward. This needs some reformulation for resubmission of her application before the administrative High Court.

21 June, 2008

* Today, Elizabeth has been advised by the Penrith Magistrates that they have passed a Liability Order against her, for refusal to pay her Council tax. She has taken this stance in order that she can take her case foreword and therefore continues to pursue her application for judicial review against the illegality Liability Order in the Council Tax Act of 1992. Penrith Council have informed her she can appeal her case which she fully intends to do.
* Further updates on Elizabeth's situation will be posted as and when we have more information. Please note, that what Elizabeth is doing, for all of us, not just for herself, and therefore she needs all our support!

7 February, 2009

* It is with great sadness that we share the news of the passing of Mrs. Elizabeth Beckett after her fight against leukemia. Elizabeth was the daughter of a High Court judge. The fact she managed one last shot across the bows of the nation's ever-dwindling sovereignty says so much about her steadfastness.

To close Part 4 of this series I will print a copy of her last letter to the Queen before passing away. This will not be the last we hear of Elizabeth Beckett as I intend to print another classical letter she wrote. This astute lady will never be forgotten and as we will see many others are taking up the fight…….in the meantime read and enjoy:

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA 21 January 2009

Unconstitutional reign

Madam
Giving careful consideration to the mode of address in this letter, although in courtesy I have addressed it in conventional manner, it is clear that having, in effect, abdicated by failure to perform your coronation oath you leave the people of this nation without effective titular head to whom we may address our petitions. I write to you only in your pre-eminence in Common Law.
I write on Edmund Burke's remark that for evil to flourish it is sufficient for good men to do nothing.
At your coronation you swore on oath to rule this country according to our laws and customs. This contract with us was written clearly in Magna Carta and replicated by Edward I in 1274. After saying that he would give no such oath, the archbishops, bishops, barons and freemen said that, in this case, they would get another king.

In Magna Carta it was made clear that if the monarch went against this oath then chapter 61 would apply, the contract would be broken and the monarch would have to give up his position and possessions. You have, throughout your reign, disregarded our laws and customs in the legislation that has gone through Parliament.

I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.
In other words, the 1911 claim, is incorrect and the monarch's assent was never and can never be deemed unnecessary or automatic, even though George V chose to accept that the royal assent was now a formality and that the monarch could not, in reality refuse assent - as in the Northern Ireland Bill.

Despite all the long years of your reign this method of agreement, either forced on you, or under "automatic assent" nevertheless cannot be upheld as lawful.

Many people who have written to you on constitutional matters have received replies from your secretary (most recently, Sonia Bonici) saying that their letter had been forwarded to the government department misleadingly called the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Ministry of Justice. Your compliance with this has permitted the judiciary under these government departments to claim, as in the Chagos Archipelago appeal, that our fundamental liberties do not exist and that the peoples of these islands have no rights under our law.

I am old and now seriously ill. I cannot die without making clear to you that you have broken your oath to us your people.

The 1911 act purports to permit taxes to be levied on us merely by a majority in the House of Commons and without reference to the upper chamber. This again is against our constitution and specifically not permitted by our Petition of Right of 1627. The most serious instance of this is the use of our taxes to fund the banking system of this country: this is being explained to the electorate as a step which will in some way make us rich, whilst in fact it is not only unlawful, but a most serious abrogation of our rights and your duties under our constitution.

Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If you have the courage to fulfil your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.

Yours Faithfully,
Elizabeth Beckett Copy to:
The Archbishop of Canterbury

I am sure readers would agree that this person represents what we all feel but never have the courage to act upon. I would like to congratulate the Namaste Web Page for their gallant effort in trying to bring this to the world’s attention. It is rather sad that once again we see the British Media neglecting the British Public in bringing this out into the open. It goes without saying that Elizabeth Beckett never gave up in her fight for justice and to retain the traditions of the United Kingdom. I therefore dedicate this article in her name.…"